blinkandwheeze posted:

i think its both, that stuff exists for sure but it also supports the idea that the valorization of thug culture or whatever in popular black media is the reason for the huge black prison population and dwindling economic conditions in black neighborhoods etc. so it pops up in conservative circles too

seems like a concise, easy to swallow narrative that would help conservatives to correctly identify the Jew as the originator of all of society's ills

codywilson posted:

I think you guys are making the same point, just approaching two different sides. As (white) society tells the white/dominant culture that twerking is offensive and base, the (white) society simultaneously tells the black culture they should engage in it. It's all white suprematism. (That is, if we take ilmdge's point to be that african americans should move beyond this practice as it is demeaning them in the wider context of society, and such degradation is perpetuated by white suprematism)

Briefly getting back to the topic of Miley twerking; it appears the public discourse regarding twerking is reinforcing exactly this and cleverly avoiding overt racism by transposing the criticism of the dance to a white girl while simultaneously acknowledging its origin within black culture.

codywilson posted:

As (white) society tells the white/dominant culture that twerking is offensive and base, the (white) society simultaneously tells the black culture they should engage in it. It's all white suprematism. (That is, if we take ilmdge's point to be that african americans should move beyond this practice as it is demeaning them in the wider context of society, and such degradation is perpetuated by white suprematism)

you are missing the point entirely so i will spell it out to you as clearly as i can: twerking exists independently of white suprematist mass culture. it was created indigenously in a number of southern black communities that originally existed outside of the apparatuses of mass corporate media production. the extent the music was commercialized at the time was solely in the form of small and dedicatedly independent record labels owned by members of these communities and the selling and exchange of cassette dubs at swap meets, car boot sales etc. because it had no representation in the system of wide popular culture establishments. the reason for this lack of representation is that, as has been mentioned, white suprematist bourgeois culture does not care about black culture except as a vehicle for political and economic exploitation. as such, the instruments of bourgeois media have no vested interest in representing the cultural practices of black communities until they attract substantial enough audience to sufficiently demonstrate the profitability of this exploitation. how these audiences are developed is solely based on the infrastructure indigenously developed by these communities through grassroots engagement. when that development reaches the height at which that exploitation can be justifiably pursued, the practices of these communities are divorced from the material conditions they originated from and appropriated as empty signifiers, in this case for the commodification of women's bodies in the patriarchal institutions of mass media

the thing is, this appropriation does not eliminate the existence of the people and the infrastructure that developed this culture. it continues to exist and change on its own terms independent of this appropriation. what you and ilmdge are saying that since this appropriation is possible, the community that originated these practices should just give them up. they lose all right to their own creative products and expressions, women and queer people lose the right to the bodily actions they created, advanced and elaborated entirely on their own terms

patriarchal influence of media institutions are pervasive enough that the commodification and sexualization of women's bodies is inescapable. this applies as much to fey indie sweethearts as it does the women of new orleans bounce music. you are using the products of the white suprematist bourgeoisie to dismiss the creative expression of women of color. i dont understand at all how this would be any different from me going to the ivory coast and decrying the cultural practices of the communities of women there because it exists in the context of a world with prevailing cultural institutions that determines them moving their lower backs or flexing their glutes as a process of sexual degradation

which is like why this whole discussion is totally insane to me, its a dance, this is not women renting out their bodies, this is not women sexualizing themselves for the pleasure of men, the vast majority of women twerking are never going to be on tv or a music video or performing in exchange for money, theyre just people moving their body in a particular way to a particular music. i imagine one of you could respond to this by saying that "well then wouldnt you also just characterize stripping as the same" but i wouldn't, because stripping exists in the context of the direct economic exploitation of women

like again your whole argument is totally insane to me, what you are doing is recognizing that a culture is being appropriated and exploited by white suprematist bourgeois institutions but somehow contorting that into attacking the people who are being appropriated instead of the institutions that are doing the appropriating. ilmdge explicitly said this was because he didn't see this specifically black culture as valuable enough to defend and i am having a hard time even imagining a more explicitly racist argument than that

codywilson posted:

I disagree with this.

like do you realize you are specifically disagreeing with the point in my argument where i say "a woman who has consensual sex with multiple partners is not a whore and it is pretty naked misogyny to equate them to one"

codywilson posted:

I think you've staked out a really simplistic individualism here. It's implying that what people want to do and how they behave/act is totally up to them. It's really a camouflaged appeal to game theory/libertarian rational self-interest stuff

are you really dense enough to not understand that the systemic marginalization and exclusion of specific social sectors in bourgeois society results in a culture and discourse developed by these sectors independent of existent hegemonic forces. this is almost the entire foundation of marxism, that with the proletariat (& lumpen proletariat as developed in later anti-colonial thought) there is a distinct tendency towards revolutionary thought because their class positioning as materially distinct from the hegemonic class provides the foundation for an opposition to the bourgeois structuring order. i mean obviously i dont think this shit is revolutionary or progressive or anything, ive probably seen some black womanist thinker argue that twerking is progressive for embracing the cultural properties associated with black femininity or something but someone who these issues actually effect should probably be the one to talk about anything like that. but what i am getting at is that there are reasons beyond fucking game theory that marginalized social bases can establish autonomous social environments and practices, or why every woman isnt fucking chomping at the bit to serve men sexually or that every black person is complicit in their own subordination, and why relying on the male white petit-bourgeois intelligentsia (who do not have it in their material interests to do so) to abolish white suprematism, patriarchy or the bourgeois ruling class beyond actual women or people of color or you know, the proletariat (who do) and why paying attention to them is a pretty good idea

but whatever m-m-m-m-make that azz clap

Edited by blinkandwheeze (Sept. 1, 2013 12:57:43)

codywilson posted:

I dunno, I think there's gonna be a layer of white suprematism, of varying thickness, on anything that comes out of america.

And maybe we should just leave it up to black women to discuss out of respect for them being autonomous and knowing whats best for themselves. But I also think that sounds really ignorant and downplays the power of the ruling class in controlling subversive thought. Like, the act of telling exploited workers that Marxism is actually in their best interest directly goes against this "leave it up to the people affected by it to make their own decisions" attitude.

you are still completely missing his point after he explained it, further and further expounding on the notion like 3 times already. i dunno myself broseph

xipe posted:

you are missing the point entirely so i will spell it out to you as clearly as i can: twerking exists independently of white suprematist mass culture.

no, yeah, I read that. I was just saying I disagree with it.

xipe posted:

you are missing the point entirely so i will spell it out to you as clearly as i can: twerking exists independently of white suprematist mass culture.

you are all missing the point, just missing the point completely, over and over the point is being missed. multiple times, whenever there is a point present, or nearby, or approaching, that point, is missed. the point comes and it is simply not gotten. cant catch a point. cant hold a point. point? no point. apointal. nonpoint. sans point. here is the point, the point i am telling you as plainly and obviously as a point can be: surely, shake your ass...but--and this part is important--watch yourself. Show them what it is that you are working with.

roseweird posted:

don't skinnyshame don't stimulantshame

i apologize. peace be upon you.

swirlsofhistory posted:

If you were married to Seth Rogen, would you cheat on him?